I've always wanted a good single-shot centerfire rifle, but never handled one. Both the Ruger #1 and Winchester/Browning 1885/B78 appeal to me. Both are quite pleasing to my eye. I like the idea of having a longer barrel but still a "normal" length rifle. And I grew up "hunting" nuisance birds in Grandpa's barns with an old single-shot Ithaca and some .22 shot shells. So, I was wondering if anyone could give me a run-down of how the Ruger compares to the Winchester/Browning.

This thread has some discussion that might interest you.

Ruger #1 vs. 1885

I love 'em both. For smaller cartridges, the 1885 Low Walls are scaled to size better. Got two of those now, and one Varmint model Ruger. The consensus seems to be that the 1885s are more likely to be accurate without any fuss. I haven't owned enough to make a solid judgement on that, but did own one 1A that was a real stinker and a Number 3 with either a crooked or badly mounted barrel. If knew some stuff I know now, the 1A might have been salvageable, but even with the forend off, it couldn't put three shots in a group.

Older Brownngs often have stunning wood, but so do some Rugers. Cruise the web a while and something will jump out at you.

the 1885's are worth the few hundred extra if you don't mind the exposed hammer

I had four number 1s, poor accuracy on all of them.
Have no experience with 1885.

I concur....I've had 3 #1's and accuracy was poor. I've had a couple NEF's that shot better than they did. I've read about good accuracy with the 1885. I'm just now getting into the Contender game so I think I will go that route and see what happens.

Maybe I'm the luckiest guy in the world, but the half-dozen or so No. 1/3s I've ever had all shot well. They included:

- 1B in 22 Hornet
- #3 in 22 Hornet
- 1B in .243
- RSI in 257 Roberts
- 1A 6.5x55

All routinely shot 3-shot groups of 1" or better. I had the .243 out last weekend and it was printing half-inch groups.

My dad has a couple and they shoot well too.

None of these were handloads. All were shot with factory Hornady ammunition. And it's not like I shot a dozen different kinds of factory ammo to get there...I just bought something that seemed appropriate and they shot well.

SR

I like both rifles, a lot but if there were one of each lying on a table and I could only have one, I'd pick the 1885.

I think...

My 1885 in 7mm Remington had knockout wood and shot very well. I'd have another but man, they were heavy.

I don't think the 1885, a Low Wall 260, I have is any heavier than most any #1 I've picked up.

Didn't mean to suggest it was. Just that I remembered it being heavy. Sold it maybe 20 years ago though.

Understood. I was referring to my Low Wall. Yours could well have been heavier.

1885, a single shot gun is supposed to have an exposed hammer that one cocks to fire.

I have a Winchester 1885, a Uberti 1885, a Browning B78, a Browning 1885, and a number of Ruger #1 rifles.

If you are going to do your own gunsmithing and rebarreling , get the Uberti.
If you are going to shoot it like it came from the factory, the Browning 1885 is the nicest.
You are most likely to find happiness with a Ruger #1. With no hammer to cock, shooting prone with a cheek rest ammo belt, the #1 can shoot like a machine gun at running deer.

I have a ruger #3 and an 1885 both chambered in k hornet...the 1885 is 1 st hear production and it shows it's really hammered and seen better days...on paper the ruger will out shoot the win..and is in much better condition..both will kill prairie dogs and sage rats.I like them both but in the end the 1885 is one of my favorite rifles.. It's the perfict design for a single shot..

I have and like both. The 1885 high walls with the 28 inch barrel are heavy. I have used one in the past and didn't enjoy carrying it. The 22 and 24 inch barrel models carry better but still feel heavy. The 1885 low wall rifles are a delight to carry and shoot. All my 1885's have been accurate without any alterations. I currently have a #1 RSI in 6.5x55. Somewhat surprisingly to me, it is the most consistently accurate of the six #1's I've owned and shoots about as well as the 1885's. With the 20 inch barrel, it is a great, quick handling hunting rifle. None of my #1's have been horrible shooters but none, until the RSI, have been outstanding.

I have never been able to scope a No. 1 to my satisfaction due to eye relief, even with extended rings. And yes, I have tried to the point of being dumb. I think that I have owned at least six of them. I have even considered shortening the stock to move the eye forward. No report on accuracy, as I gave up on each before getting to the range. My neck is fairly short and thick (some might call me stiff necked).

As to 1885s, I have owned three. Two Brownings and another badged as a Winchester Traditional Hunter. All were accurate. The Winchester had the deep curved steel butt plate and was brutal with heavy loaded .45-70. I strongly recommend those equipped with a shotgun butt.

Jack

add me to the list.....but I learned my lesson after only one.....

The 1885 gets my vote easily.

I’d take the 1885 without question over the Ruger #1.